please answer

answer all parts of the question please

Consider two types moral reasoning: Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist approaches (and the specific theories involved). Which of these theories, if any, do you find most reasonable, and why? Provide a clear example to demonstrate your thinking So let's consider a hypothetical situation... Youve got an acquaintance at University. Not a close friend, but someone you've taken classes with before. And in those classes, this person has generally done as well or better than you. They're a responsible capable student But ono torm, this student disappears for a few weeks at the end of the torm. You too thom right before you go into take your final exam, and the student says they had to leave the country to care for a sick relative. They asked the professor for an extension, but the professor refused, and now they're totally unprepared for the final and about to fail the class Except there's a quirk in the testing room. From this student's seat, they can look up at the light fixtures and seo a reflection of your desk a few rows away. So, they can copy off your exam with no chance of you getting caught just accept this as part of the hypothetical). Why the student told you this before cheating. I'm not sure, but now you know their plan So...what's the right thing to do? Let them copy? Roport to the professor? Just move seats (if you do, someone else will sit in your seat and they probably copy off of them)? Now, here's the important part. It's not your answer that we're after this week. It's your ROBO. The big values that you used to arrive at the specific judgment about this case. For example, you might make the following argument P. It wil op them for the past P. Nobody will pot in any trouble G: It's good to let them copy That's an example of a consequentaba argument Your focused on the outcomes of the decision. Specifically, it's a Unitarian argument, because the big principle required to make that argument work is the promised the night at the one that creates that maximized applness for all involved But you could arrive at the same conclusion for entirely different reason. You might say something like this P. To report the portion to anith P: You have a duty never to nich G. You should let them copy or switch seats This argument isn't really about outcomes anymore. It invokes a duty-a moral rule that must be followed no matter what. That's a Deontological approach Obviously, I think there are logical problems with both of those arguments in the first case, I think there may well be people harmed by cheating, especially if we consider what would happen if everyone did it. In the second, is the duty not to snitch really one you can apply consistently? Would you not report a car theft or a murder? And if your "no snitch duty only applies some of the time, how do you decide when? Consider two types moral reasoning: Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist approaches (and the specific theories involved). Which of these theories, if any, do you find most reasonable, and why? Provide a clear example to demonstrate your thinking So let's consider a hypothetical situation... Youve got an acquaintance at University. Not a close friend, but someone you've taken classes with before. And in those classes, this person has generally done as well or better than you. They're a responsible capable student But ono torm, this student disappears for a few weeks at the end of the torm. You too thom right before you go into take your final exam, and the student says they had to leave the country to care for a sick relative. They asked the professor for an extension, but the professor refused, and now they're totally unprepared for the final and about to fail the class Except there's a quirk in the testing room. From this student's seat, they can look up at the light fixtures and seo a reflection of your desk a few rows away. So, they can copy off your exam with no chance of you getting caught just accept this as part of the hypothetical). Why the student told you this before cheating. I'm not sure, but now you know their plan So...what's the right thing to do? Let them copy? Roport to the professor? Just move seats (if you do, someone else will sit in your seat and they probably copy off of them)? Now, here's the important part. It's not your answer that we're after this week. It's your ROBO. The big values that you used to arrive at the specific judgment about this case. For example, you might make the following argument P. It wil op them for the past P. Nobody will pot in any trouble G: It's good to let them copy That's an example of a consequentaba argument Your focused on the outcomes of the decision. Specifically, it's a Unitarian argument, because the big principle required to make that argument work is the promised the night at the one that creates that maximized applness for all involved But you could arrive at the same conclusion for entirely different reason. You might say something like this P. To report the portion to anith P: You have a duty never to nich G. You should let them copy or switch seats This argument isn't really about outcomes anymore. It invokes a duty-a moral rule that must be followed no matter what. That's a Deontological approach Obviously, I think there are logical problems with both of those arguments in the first case, I think there may well be people harmed by cheating, especially if we consider what would happen if everyone did it. In the second, is the duty not to snitch really one you can apply consistently? Would you not report a car theft or a murder? And if your "no snitch duty only applies some of the time, how do you decide when